On 14/04/2011 17:02, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2011, at 8:34 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>>> At 03:55 PM 4/14/2011 +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
>>> Ricardo isn't suggesting that Python should always call super for you, but when you *start* the chain by calling super then Python could ensure that all the methods are called for you. If an individual method doesn't call super then a theoretical implementation could skip the parents
>>> methods (unless another child calls super).
>> That would break classes that deliberately don't call super. I can think of examples in my own code that would break, especially in __init__() cases.
>>>> It's perfectly sensible and useful for there to be classes that intentionally fail to call super(), and yet have a subclass that wants to use super(). So, this change would expose an internal implementation detail of a class to its subclasses, and make "fragile base class" problems worse. (i.e., where an internal change to a base class breaks a previously-working subclass).
> I agree. Better for someone to submit a recipe for a variant of super and see if there is any uptake.
In Python 3 super is treated specially by the compiler, so an
alternative implementation that behaves similarly to the built-in one
modulo this change is not possible.
Two use cases for the suggested alternative behaviour have been
presented. What is the use case for a method not wanting to prevent its
*sibling* methods in a multiple inheritance situation being called?
I believe the use case Phillip (and others) have presented is for
methods preventing their *parent* methods being called.
All the best,
Michael Foord
>> Raymond
>
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html